word. thank you very much, karen. he's talking. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. we're starting off tonight with the latest on the boston bombing case. the surviving subject, dzhokhar tsarnaev, remains hospitalized from bullet wounds but authorities say his condition has improved to fair today. authorities also tell nbc news that he has cooperated with them so far. he's told investigators that he and his brother acted alone in last week's bombings at the boston marathon, that they had no contact with overseas terrorist groups. that's what he said. he said the brothers built the bomb with guidance from an online publication put out by the al qaeda off shoot in yemen called "inspire."

it is written in english with instructions on how to build a bomb used last week. tsarnaev it's reported told authorities the motive for the attack has to do with their religious fervor, he and his brother's, and anger over the united states' wars in afghanistan and iraq. meanwhile, we're seeing new images from that dramatic shooting in watertown at 1:00 a.m. friday morning. they come from an eyewitness whose apartment overlooked the fire fight. the brothers are seen there crouching behind a car. at least one of them seems to be firing. the car on the right is that mercedes suv that was carjacked earlier in the night. in this last photo, by the way, the red circle is, it's reported, highlighting what the eyewitness believes was a pressure cooker bomb. there it is. anyway, there are also two new photos today showing dzhokhar earlier in the night at an atm machine allegedly using a debit card from the man he and his brother carjacked to withdraw the cash. for more on all this i'm joined by michael isikoff, national investigative correspondent for nbc news. michael, thank you for this. we're watching, we're trying to

learn. what do you make of this testimony by -- of the man in fair condition now, the younger brother? is it to be believed? >> reporter: well, it is worth pointing out that it's not actually in his interest to say this. the one option he's got now is to try to figure out a way to avoid the death penalty because the evidence against him is so overwhelming. and the best way to do that would be to tell authorities that there were others involved as part of a deal to save his life. at least that's what any lawyer would tell him. and that's not what he's done. so in many -- in some respects, he's actually hurt himself by saying this. now, that said, it is also worth noting that the preliminary review by fbi agents of the cell phones and e-mails of the two brothers does not show, does not appear to show any indication of accomplices or connections to outside terror groups.

i should stress this is early in the investigation. there's going to be a lot more digging by the fbi. but at least -- and plus, add to that that no al qaeda groups or no al qaeda-affiliated groups or any international terrorist groups have claimed credit for this bombing, which is a bit odd if they were. because generally the whole purpose is to claim the credit and after most of the major terrorist attacks by al qaeda, there was a claim of responsibility. so, look, none of this is dispositive at this point. but at least so far, and we're early, the indicators do seem to match up that this is looking like a case of self-radicalization. that these brothers were on the internet, got inspired by reading "inspire" and other al qaeda and jihadi videos. there's also this prophet -- not prophet, this preacher, feiz mohammed, who's an awlaki type guy. an inspirational jihadi preacher

who tamerlan tsarnaev in his youtube account posts videos from. so he may have played a role in inspiring these. inspiring them or radicalizing them. but as i said, chris, we're a long way from finishing this investigation. >> so just to use your instincts as an investigative reporter, and you're a good one, the fact that he said all this, he denied any connections to any networking, he basically said this was self-radicalization. in other words, he said that they learned how to build these bombs online. if that turns out not to be true, then he has a bigger risk of the death penalty, is that what you're saying? >> reporter: sure. because then he's not cooperating with law enforcement, but he's also lost his leverage by saying this. it is in his interest to be able to tell them something. >> you think a lawyer, michael,

would have told him to hold out until he got a deal? >> reporter: absolutely. absolutely. the one thing a lawyer is going to try to do at this point is to save his life. the one way to do that is to show cooperation by pointing the finger at somebody else or helping them find somebody else. look, i don't take these statements at face value, just, you know, just to be clear. you know, he could well be protecting somebody. clearly there were others who they were talking to. it's hard to imagine the two of them just simply became radicalized by themselves without any encouragement from anybody else. >> that surprises me, too. >> reporter: it doesn't mean there was an accomplice in the plot. also, we have the statements from the uncle who says there was somebody who radicalized the older brother. >> so let me thank you very much. >> reporter: that's what we know at this point. right. >> thanks so much, as always. thank you, michael isikoff. let's go right now, more on the emerging picture of the two

boston bombers, roger cressey, former white house counterterrorism official and nbc, of course, news analyst on terrorism. michael mcfadden is the former deputy assistant director at the naval criminal investigative service. he's now a senior vice president at the suffon group. let me ask you both gentlemen, first, roger, then robert. what did you make of that? do you make -- when you look at this, do you see two guys, two brothers, amateurs, if you will, self-radicalized, self-experts at bomb making? no plans to escape really, just doing this on their own? not talking about it with other people, no cellmates in terms of a sleeper cell jihadist. >> based on what we know right now, it's probably unlikely there was a broader conspiracy. it's difficult to believe there weren't other people in the family or in the community who were not aware of some of the intent that he had. and if the case is they were not, then there's two questions. one, my god, these guys were really good and we have to look at how a self-contained unit could do so well. then the second question is, if

the community did know and didn't say anything, why? out of fear? other reasons? important question to ask. >> well, is it believable to you that they built the bomb on their own? >> it's plausible. >> all these bombs. >> it's plausible. it's conceivable. if they built it from scratch, they didn't test it and the first time they detonated one was monday morning, that's an incredible amount of luck involved as well as potential skill. >> we don't know they didn't test, do we? >> we don't. no, we don't yet. >> and what about the idea of learning jihadism just over the intercom -- not over the intercom, over the internet. >> the "inspire magazine" done by aq -- >> does it make you a radical? >> it can radicalize you. anwar al awlaki was a brilliant preacher. because he spoke to a western audience. he was an american. and so if you were susceptible, he could give you a message and it resonates with you then you're off to the races toward radicalization. >> we talked beforehand, i'll let you talk now. is it your hunch what we heard today from the suspect, he's still technically a suspect, dzhokhar, do you believe he's telling the truth in what he said?

it may not be the whole story. but in what he said? >> i do. he's young. he's not the leader of this two-person cell. baited on -- based on what -- i hate to use the word cell. >> why to you hate you use the word cell? >> cell has connotations there was a broader group of individuals involved and could have been here for a long time. these guys were self-radicalized. how they were self-radicalized, toward what end, are the two central questions. >> let me go to robert. same sets of questions. do you believe they acted alone? do you believe they're capable of building the bomb and becoming radicalized by their lonesome? >> yeah. i agree. it's plausible. completely plausible. a few things to consider, though, and my friend michael isikoff made the point. as an investigative element, very little is going to be taken at face value. the process of evaluation and vetting continues. it's great to hear the degree of cooperation, the rapport the interviewers have with the young man. again, what he says is going to be bounced off cell phone records, other records, intelligence databases to make sure that it is the truth. then if some things aren't the

truth, from an interrogator's standpoint, that can be good, too, to open up that door and find out what we have here. now, as far as the doing it on their own, some things to consider, has been spoken about. over the internet and other places, you have a very potent message of charismatic hellfire and brimstone message of violence and death. whether feiz mohammed, or a chechen preacher of the same ilk. bin laden himself has a very, very potent message for young guys who are susceptible and vulnerable to that and essentially self-recruits. back to the main question, chris. is it plausible? i think so. we've seen it before. if you take major nidal hasan, for example, identified with the group ideology, but he recruited himself. >> explain motive, then, why would you go hang out with your buddies at the dorm at umass/dartmouth tuesday night. on monday night you're killing people that look just like those people you killed on monday and shot their legs off.

why would you shoot the legs off total strangers then hang out with a bunch of buddies and act like a real american type? was there an act going on here, robert? is this part act? i don't understand it otherwise. how do you rate generally americans and like generally americans and kill a bunch of them? i don't get it. >> listen, this is absolutely the question here. in light of this tragedy, in perverse ways, it's absolutely fascinating. you've seen some of the photographs released today, for example, going to the atm. and the comportment after the event, there's some ice in that blood. but what's going to be key though, here, too, the brother, in the timeline over the last six months up until he took that constructive act to go from thinking about it to actually doing it, and the relationship with his younger brother. how much he pulled him along. what was really the younger brother has to say about motivation. because those are the kind of things help us understand how this tragedy came about. what kind of indicators for the

future. >> you know, we've heard stories about the 9/11, the guys who took over the planes flying into the world trade center, screeching with joy over allah, they're going to paradise, nirvana. i have to tell you, in all the days we tried to figure out those pictures before we found out who these guys were, i saw that younger guy strutting down that street. >> uh-huh. >> he was a hot dog. he was enjoying that. whatever he was doing, it wasn't sweating, it wasn't feeling guilty. he was strutting. i just think -- i don't see anything that suggests in any kind of tempering conscience. >> it was totally cold-blooded. the fact they both reintegrated into their prior lives after the attack is just -- it is jaw dropping. the psychological profile on dzhokhar is going to be fascinating. chris, there's two other pieces here. one is self-radicalization, we can understand that. what happened in russia is going to be critical for tamerlan. the second part is the internal family dynamic here. the role of the mother, how other members of the family saw what was happening and what they did or did not -- >> the mother denies everything. >> well, she does.

she also based on what we've seen from interviews was very, very devout and went on an extremist approach toward religion and toward the united states. clearly the relationship with her and tamerlan, the older brother, was important. and we're going to need to delve into that. >> you think she was an american hater? >> you know -- >> if you use common sense here. if you're going to kill a bunch of people, you probably hate them. >> i'm not saying she was involved in the conspiracy, chris. based on what she said in her public statements, she played a fascinating role in influencing her -- at least her older son and possibly her younger son. that -- we've got to be careful here, but what i've seen she's said publicly is pretty disturbing. >> okay. thank you so much, gentlemen. this is tricky. we are operating in the dark here. we do have a confession now, a lot of confessions coming out of this young guy. roger cressey, thank you. robert mcfadden. coming up, we're learning new details as we said ability the wife of the older brother, tamerlan. her name's katherine russell. she converted to islam to marry him. investigators want to know what she would have known about what her husband was up to. a fairly legitimate question. and later, how people

concerned about abortion rights are reacting to the horrific murder trial of a doctor up in philadelphia that's going on right now. plus, a new poll shows mark sanford in real trouble. and steve colbert's sister looking pretty good. she's the sister, of course, of the comedian. she's opened up a nine-point lead as of today over sanford. with just two weeks to go before that special election down in charleston. is sanford nearing the end of his appalachian trail or comeback trail? we'll see. finally, another republican elected official uses an ethnic slur to make a point. these guys live in isolation booths. wait until you hear what that guy said. if that's not bad enough, wait till you hear what his apology sounds like, which is even worse. at least it's stupid. this is "hardball." the place for politics. she knows you like no one else. and you wouldn't have it any other way. but your erectile dysfunction - you know, that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently.

tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

boylston street up in boston is re-opened to residents and businesses. there they are. that's the street where the boston marathon ends. that was the finish line where the bombs went off eight days ago. here in washington, pennsylvania avenue in front of the white house as reopened to pedestrian traffic. it was closed to pedestrians after monday's attacks.

yeah, i'm looking to save, but i'm not sure which policy is right for me. you should try our coverage checker. it helps you see if you have too much coverage or not enough, making it easier to get what you need. [ beeping ] these are great! [ beeping ] how are you, um, how are you doing? i'm going to keep looking over here. probably a good idea. ken: what's a good idea? nothing. with coverage checker, it's easy to find your perfect policy.

welcome back to "hardball." alleged marathon bomber dzhokhar tsarnaev is upgraded in fair condition now. he's in fair condition. he was in serious. today at a boston hospital. while the investigation continues into what motivated his attack last week.

in a moment we're going to find out what investigators are learning about the wife of tamerlan, that's his older brother. right now, let's go to the information from wnbc's chief investigative reporter jonathan dienst. thank you, jonathan. what do we got new? you've listened to the first part of this show. we're talking about what the suspect has had to say, the surviving suspect about being out there all alone. two brothers operating alone, technically, and also apparently ideologically. they were picking up their radicalization over the internet. not through any coaching or role of anybody as a sort of a recruiter. >> well, that is the claim that investigators say is being made by the wounded younger brother who continues to recover in the hospital. investigators are now running around, as you heard, they're trying to verify that. they are checking with all of the relatives. you've got the wife, you've got two sisters in new jersey. you've got the parents overseas. you've got russian intelligence. you've got -- they're tracking their cell phones. as of now, nothing to indicate, but, again, it is still very early on for them to have done a deep dive to find out exactly if

there are any connections to any others, whether there's a bomb maker or a trainer or some sort of jihadist who may have influenced them. unclear. but as of now, one senior official continues to tell us lone wolf killers. that's how he is describing them until proven otherwise. that's the best information they have at this time. >> they're coming off as lobe and leopold here. two brothers who are completely isolated morally and emotionally from those around them. i go back to my question, maybe it's too naive, but how do you kill a whole bunch of people, blow their legs off with abandon, with a sort of zip in your step as we see in these tapes, then go back to the university dorm where you hung out, university of mass at dartmouth and hang out with your buds who are of the same crowd of the people you just destroyed? where's the hatred in all that that's consistent? >> right, well, the hatred appears to be coming from the al qaeda-inspired videos they were

apparently watching. "inspire" magazine. the brother's apparently growing radicalization and his anger over u.s. involvement overseas. you heard some reporting by mike isikoff about the outbursts in the community mosque up there and that there were some signals. but clearly nothing that, you know, rose to the level of law enforcement or to his relatives. at least that's so far what we're hearing. not the wife. not the sisters. apparently not the parents who continue, at least the mom continues to even deny that her sons are even linked to this. >> is there a lot of that borderline jihadism where people may voice the words? i know that's true in other parts of our life where people talk a good talk but don't do anything. or they may have the anger of a jihadist. they may be mad at the west for our position in the middle east, for example, which to some extent is fairly familiar. we're too pro-israeli, too pro-western, we exploit their oil. all the arguments they can make.

people can talk about those things. discuss them. their anger level. is there a lot of it in the islamic communities in this country that you would just pass over? i'm getting back to what was said earlier tonight by roger. if you hear a person has been thrown out of a couple mosques because he was over the top in his hatred for the united states and called for action, are there so many of those people that you don't report them? well, first of all, about how widespread, look, i think the vast, vast overall majority of muslim-americans in this country love this country. >> yeah, sure. what about the ones screaming, the ones, the cases -- >> we've had examples in the city, the muslim thinkers society, radical beliefs, they're out protesting and voicing support for the islamic movement. wanting an islamic flag over the white house. so we've seen some of those types of vocal demonstrations, but there's freedom of speech in this country. >> i know. >> as we've heard, the fbi, you know, was tipped off by russian intelligence back in 2011 but

had not much to go on other than a claim, hey, this guy has some radical thoughts out there and you need to follow up on him. they did. they checked his computers. they checked his phones. they interviewed him and didn't come up with anything at that time. we're told they found nothing that indicated that he's linked to terror. you know, having some bad thoughts is not, you know, a crime. >> look, i'm a civil libertarian. i'm just trying to find out some basis of understanding the pull from which the -- because i've been hearing for the last week or so there's so many of these cases you can't follow up on them all. that's sort of offered as a defense of the fbi. you can't just -- what they had from the russians notifying them. that wasn't enough to really keep this guy on an active watch list. the older brother. >> i think there is a resource question and in terms of how broad you want to go. look what's gone on in britain and in london and how overtaxed the intelligence services are there after the 07/07 attacks and the number of radical individuals that they need to try to keep tabs on. it is problematic. it is a concern. again, it is a very small minority amid these populations,

certainly in britain and in the u.s., but it is certainly something that continues to be a concern. >> okay. great having you on, jonathan dienst, for joining us. we're learning new details tonight about the wife of the older tsarnaev brother, tamerlan. her name is katherine russell. she converted to islam and married tamerlan living in the family home with her daughter, their daughter, while working 80-hour weeks as a home health aide. she had a tough job. katy zezma is a reporter for the associated press covering this story of katherine tsarnaev. this is a fascinating story of a woman who's a real worker. i mean, what a tough job taking care of people at home. bathing them, perhaps an older person they're taking care of. brutal in terms of the commitment of effort and emotions. is it feasible, in your reporting, that she just didn't know what her husband was up to? >> well, it's unclear. she's been asked -- the federal authorities have asked to interview her. katherine's lawyer said today

she's doing everything she can to assist the federal authorities, but he will not confirm or deny whether or not she's actually spoken with them. >> yeah. what do we know about her? we know she's -- there she is. she's a convert to islam. fair enough. legal enough. fine enough. the question is, was she that submissive? i mean, people keep telling me, a muslim woman lives in a world in which the husband does what he feels like and doesn't have to answer to her for his movements. but she's bringing home the bread, and we say in america. working hard. working her butt off if you will, 80 hours a week, over 70 hours a week. he's not doing anything to make any money and she doesn't have the right in her home to ask the guy, what are you up to, why aren't you working? >> well, it's unclear at this point. what we do know about her is she's from north kingstown, rhode island. she went to suffolk university in 2007. she dropped out in fall of -- in excuse me, spring of 2010, and they got married in june of 2010. they met at a nightclub and, you know, they both -- she at a certain point converted to islam.

>> yeah. there's a nice place to pick up an islamic religion, right? in a nightclub. that is so strange. all this is strange. do we know what her relationship was with the other brother? did they know each other? the sister-in-law and brother-in-law? >> the brother-in-law apparently spent most of his time at college, so it is unclear at this point what their relationship was. >> now, what's the fbi -- is there any way of knowing what the fbi has as sort of a sense and smell about her? some of these cases i've watched through history where somebody does something, of a subversive nature, and the spouse does get targeted for the investigation -- and sometimes incriminated, is there any sense in the behavior of the authorities what their view is of her role of innocence or guilt here? >> you know, like i said earlier, you know, they're asking to interview her. they obviously want to talk to her. she was married to him. her lawyer said that she is cooperating. as to whether or not they've actually spoken or not, it's unclear. they do obviously want to talk to her. >> i'm waiting to see a report when we find out. that's big news when they interrogate her.

>> yes. >> thank you so much, katie zezima. coming up, another day, another republican with an offensive ethnic slur. these guys live in isolation booths. wait until you hear the guy's apology. it's just lame brain. i don't know if it's evil or not. it's lame brain. this is the place for politics. people join angie's list for all kinds of reasons. i go to angie's list to gauge whether or not the projects will be done in a timely fashion and within budget. angie's list members can tell you which provider is the best in town. you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare. now that we're expecting, i like the fact

that i can go onto angie's list and look for pediatricians. the service providers that i've found on angie's list actually have blown me away. join today and find out why over 1 million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust.

back to "hardball." now to the sideshow. first up, what is former president bill clinton have in common with tv shows like "the new normal," "days of our lives" and "american horror story" "asylum"? those shows were all honored at this year's glaad media awards. well, actress jennifer lawrence presented the advocate for change award to former president clinton and had a suffering of a slight stumble there. >> we are happy to present glaad's advocate for change award to president gla -- bill clinton. of all the things to mess up. his name.

>> well, i don't think she lost any fans there, do you? probably picked some up. next, the moment that defined rick perry's 2012 republican primary experience comes back to bite yet again. >> the third agency of government i would do away with, the education -- the -- commerce. and let's see. >> oh, my. >> i can't. the third one, i can't. sorry. oops. >> well, the texas governor held some events in chicago this week to try and convince business leaders up there to relocate to texas. chicago mayor rahm emanuel's welcome message was a reminder of that debate performance.

"i hope when he comes he remembers all three of his reasons because it will be a real test for that guy." next, it's been about a month since alaska congressman don king referred to latinos as wetbacks. here's republican dennis johnson, oklahoma statehouse majority leader, talking about running a small business. >> such a thing called niche marketing. what you do, you find out what you do better than somebody else and that's what you market. then you get the reward of success. people come back to you. they like what you do. they like the service they get. and they don't ask me. they might try to jew me down on a price. that's fine. >> that was right in the chamber there of the assembly. the state governing body. right in the chamber he said that. if you were put off by that, however, catch this guy's apology. >> sir? did i? all right. i apologize to the jews. they're good small businessmen as well.

>> wow. i don't know what i have to say about that. i think some people live in political isolation booths. i'll just put it at that. enough of that. up next, both sides on the debate over abortion rights are reacting to the grisly details coming out of the trial of the philadelphia doctor. that's going on right thousand. we're going to cover it. this is "hardball." the place for politics.

welcome back to "hardball." in philadelphia, right now, the trial of an abortion doctor charged with the murder of babies the prosecutors say were born alive, is generating national headlines. of course, it was page 1 of today's "usa today" with the headline "gruesome testimony renews debate over abortion." i'm not sure about that, but it is gruesome testimony. a grand jury report released in 2011 called the clinic a house of horrors. the bottom line remains this is a murder case. let's keep our heads around that. originally dr. kermit gosnell was charged with seven counts of first-degree murder for killing babies that were allegedly born alive and viable. today a judge threw out three of the seven murder charges. the judge did not explain his

reasoning. reports indicated he did not hear sufficient evidence the three babies he took out were actually born viable and then killed. gosnell is also charged with third-degree murder in the 2009 death of an abortion patient. he's accused of overdosing during the procedure. prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for gosnell in the death of the infants. joining me is radio talk show host, msnbc contributor michael smerconish, and ilyse hogue. president of naral, pro-choice america. i want to put a couple things in perspective, michael. you are a lawyer from pennsylvania. you know your stuff and you know this case. ever since 1976 in pennsylvania, we've only had three executions for murder one. so this is a unique case, the fact we're even talking about it. michael, put it in that perspective. the fact that we're already talking about capital punishment in this case. >> well, the important thing to keep in mind is that in pennsylvania, we have the death penalty on the books, but we don't really mean it. in those three instances, the only three cases where a death sentence has been carried out,

each of those defendants, they asked for it. they waved the white flag and said bring on that punishment. so it exists but really it's a fiction. still, chris, i don't need to tell you how significant it is that a medical practitioner would be facing at least at the outset of the trial seven counts of first-degree murder. first-degree murder meaning that the prosecution is saying with malice aforethought, he intended to kill viable babies. and as you point out, three of those were now tossed by the judge who didn't explain his rationale. but presumably because he believed that the prosecution had not met its burden. and so just as the defense is getting under way, he removed those elements from the jury's consideration. >> these were abortions which resulted in a baby being born alive and then killed. it wasn't like they died on the gurney. they were killed by what procedure? it was with a knife, right? the allegation, michael? >> that's according to the prosecution now. the prosecution says that the

spines were actually snipped. now, at least -- and that's, it's the most heinous, grisly of testimony that you could imagine. that's what the prosecution maintains. why else would the spines have been snipped except to kill those babies upon delivery? the defense says that's not true, there were not sufficient signs of life. these babies were not born alive. and at least with regard to three of the seven counts, they convinced the judge to pull that from the case. >> what do you make of this guy, without getting into the legal aspects? well, it is the legal aspects. the question of this very late-term abortion here. i understand roe v. wade. the third trimester requires a real condition of health, concern about the health of the mother. let's be real, obviously. this guy, based upon what i've seen, would not be the one you'd rely on for judgment of any quality. this guy was involved in late-term abortions. according to these allegations he was run a lousy place. unhealthy. your view as a pro-choice person. >> there's no one more outraged

by this than me, personally. certainly our organization works every single day to make certain women are not victimized by people like dr. kermit gosnell. if you can even call him a doctor as his allegations come to life. what we need is safe and legal access to medical care for women seeking abortion. this is not what was happening. as you say, if the allegations prove true, this guy was operating illegally by every state books, by the federal law. he was not operating legally. the thing that has allowed the people like dr. gosnell to continue is unnecessary restrictions on women going to the safe clinics, with reputable medical care. that's what we stand for. >> there's also supreme court ordered third trimester restrictions which are legitimate restrictions. >> oh, absolutely. it's important for your viewers to know, chris, these later term abortions as we call them, are less than 1%. >> no, but they're 18,000 a year.

i did the math. you can do the percentages. 18,000 is not an insignificant number. >> it's not an insignificant number. when you look at the women seeking this kind of care, it is an extremely small portion of them. it is among the most difficult decisions that women face. >> apparently not for him. >> not for him but for the women. these are women who -- nobody is six months pregnant and all of a sudden changes their mind. right? in the vast majority of these cases these are women who wanted this -- >> one of these babies who was born, let's be careful here, was 19 inches long. >> in many of these cases these were women who intended to have these pregnancies, wanted to carry the babies to term when we're talking about later tomorrow abortion. there is a significant medical reason that they were terminating this pregnancy. >> michael, you have a great new show on sirius xm. i was over there. what an operation, by the way. give me a sense of how people are reacting on both sides of the fight. i know you have a tremendous audience among the suburbs which tends to be pro-choice generally. what's been the reaction to this? this is something that gets to

you. everybody in our office, producers, mostly women, are appalled at this. they can't read these articles, it's so tough. i had a hard time reading them. it's beyond belief there was something going on like this, without getting into the testimony questions. if it's even like this at all, it's horrible. your thoughts? what are people saying? >> i think you just put your finger on something -- well, everybody is approaching this, frankly, to suit their own objectives. you know, the arguments from both ends of the political spectrum, they see which element of this they think suits their particular goal, and they're all alleging bias in terms of the way in which it's being covered, to which i respond, the only bias that would be proper in this case is somehow a bias toward governmental ineptitude, because at its core when you get beyond the grisly facts, if you can, there were any number of state agencies, chris, that should have shut this guy down more than a decade ago and they didn't. and that's deserving of some real circumspection. so that's what i think this case is about. it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

he's got a very street smart philly guy lawyer, jack mcmahon is his name. he's a former prosecutor. and gosnell who i once sued successfully, it will be interesting if he takes the stand because on a personal level, and believe me, i'm not defending him nor his conduct, but he will not come across as the frankenstein that all of this evidence suggests. >> well, that doesn't mean he isn't. let me ask you this about -- we've argued this. we're pro-choice in many ways. in fact, we talk about it here a lot in that vein. you have states where they really shut down on opportunity for a woman to have a real choice. she has to drive to another state. a young girl has to drive to another state. let me get back to elyse. here we have a case where states like the dakotas or places where it's really hard to get a clinic. and here you have a clinic operating like whatever. without getting into, you know, incriminating it, but it seems terrible. so we have states that are too sloppy, that don't regulate at all. then we have states that regulate to death. isn't that true? it looks like it. >> i agree with michael, this is not a problem of regulation. it was a problem of enforcement

in pennsylvania. but it's important to understand, they were all pro-choice. america gave pennsylvania an "f" because they put up road block after road block year after year. >> explain the difference in regulation being too strong and enforcement being too weak. >> we believe women's needs are best served when abortion is regulated the same as any other medical procedure. they need to be saved, performed by reputable clinicians and need to be clean. none of these things were happening. >> i'm with hillary clinton, safe, legal and rare. thank you very much. michael smerconish, good luck with the program you're on right now. sirius xm. it's where it's at. ilyse hogue, thanks for joining us. from naral. pro-choice. up next, mark sanford's political comeback. this is a little bit of a hoot. god knows what this guy is up to. just two weeks before the special election which is coming up quickly in south carolina, sanford trails, can you believe this, in south carolina. the democrat, elizabeth colbert busch, steve colbert's sister. he's nine weeks down. i don't think he's going to get too close to this victory. anyway, you're watching

"hardball." the place for politics. ncer ] does your vibrant color just seem to fade away...? now start vibrant, stay vibrant! new vidal sassoon pro series has an exclusive hydrablock system that helps fight fade out -- for up to 8 weeks. vidal sassoon pro series. salon genius. affordable for all.

[ man ] excuse me miss. [ gasps ] this fiber one 90 calorie brownie has all the deliciousness you desire. the brownie of your dreams is now deliciously real. senator max baucus of montana is the latest democrat to announce he's not running for re-election. baucus made the announcements this morning. now the democrats will have an uphill battle certainly to keep the red state seat. baucus is the eighth senator and sixth democrat to call it quits this cycle. following iowa's tom harkin, tim johnson of south dakota, jay rockefeller of west virginia.

michigan's carl levin. new jersey's frank lautenberg. saxby chambliss of georgia. mike johanns of nebraska. they're all quitting. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." mark sanford's political comeback trail may be coming to an end. with a special election for the first congressional district two weeks away now a new poll shows sanford trailing his opponent

democrat elizabeth busch by nine. 50% for cobert busch 41% for sanford after national republicans announced they would no longer fund his campaign because he violated his divorce agreement entering his ex-wife's home without her permission. sanford took an unusual approach pleading with voters in his full page ad in a charleston newspaper. he writes it's been a rough week. though we may be public figures we are still human figures who struggle just as so many other families and divorced couples do in getting child rearing right as best you can. michael steele is the former chair of the rnc and msnbc political analyst and singt ya tucker a visiting professor from the university of georgia from atlanta. were you taken with the heart warming message from the former governor? i love -- that was -- can be quite a disciplinarian. fair enough. him speaking out the back door of the house she lives in he is not supposed to visit under the divorce settlement with a cell phone flashlight and she just

happens to walk in just as he is going out and catches him in the actress passing. it just seems to be such according to form here with this relationship. your thoughts? you may be taking a side. i'm trying to enjoy the humor of the thing. >> taking a side hardly. what an idiot. and his excuse was he didn't want his 14-year-old son to have to watch the last half of the super bowl by himself. he didn't say i was worried my son was home alone and i decided to take him to my place. no. apparently jenny sanford has a bigger big screen tv than he does. >> so he couldn't lure him to his place. >> exactly. >> no. >> what do you make of this? >> do you want to take the defense of the husband here? >> there is no side to take here actually. this is just one of those silly things being played out

politically that the people in south carolina right now are just apoplectic about. the party there, everyone looking at this race saying how could we give this seat to a democrat after 20 some years? they saw the wheels coming off this thing and with his wife coming out and saying, look. you're in violation of our agreement, divorce agreement here. he is clearly scared to death of his wife that he is sneaking around the house. >> basically how we make judgments. you may not enjoy this but when i watch people on television i make a judgment about them. this guy is not to be relied upon and she is no fun because she is really catching him in the act all the time. >> all the time. >> she catches him and it's just one thing. just can't help but get caught mr. sanford. >> he was on the appalachian trail when he wasn't supposed to be, now in the house when he's not supposed to be. isn't he in love with somebody else and supposed to be with her? >> yes. he's got his fiance and they're out there as a couple publicly.

>> okay. >> you're talking about a campaign for the united states congress, and so there is a political decision being made, i think reflected in the polls. republicans in this republican district are pretty much content to say, we'll give cobert busch -- >> i got a closing comment. i knew a lot of people in congress, cynthia and michael, you know, too, who had the nerve to run in a race they couldn't possibly win. guess what? something like watergate happens or something happens and then they win and they're in for life. tom foley, jim howard of new jersey. these guys and women have the guts to run an impossible -- that is what is so inspiring. she could be a congresswoman for life in the wrong district. politically she is probably too moderate but your thoughts. >> here's the thing. one of the reasons the republican campaign committee must be just tearing its hair out is that this was another race that republicans have

essentially given away because they have a bad candidate. it's like todd aiken in missouri. these are races republicans should have won but they had bad candidates and you know at first the campaign committee was going to go ahead with it, give mark sanford money. he's at least well known. he may be, you know, he served as governor twice. he's got the politics that seem to fit that district but he is also an idiot. let me say this in his wife's defense. remember that mark sanford came to her to ask her to run his campaign this time around after publicly humiliating her with another woman. for all of his alleged political genius she may have been the real brains behind his campaign successes in the past. >> cynthia, you hit on i think the key point there about the genius of this operation. i think that's something a lot

of republicans have recognized out of the box. at the end of the day republican voters in the primary voted for him twice, not once, but twice. in the run off. first primary -- >> will they do it again despite this nonsense? >> from what i'm hearing on the ground in south carolina -- >> will they vote for the democrat -- the woman candidate? >> they either won't vote which will be like voting for ms. coburt busch or they will cross the aisle and vote for her. this poll is very troublesome for a lot of folks in south carolina. >> women are unlikely to vote for this character. i think cynthia probably agrees with that. >> yes. >> anyway, michael steele, cynthia tucker, next time i'll bring you in for something serious. we'll be right back after this.

let me finish tonight with this. i love this race in south carolina. here was a woman elizabeth coburt busch who took a chance entering a race for congress where democrats like her don't stand a chance. not a chance in the world. she did so knowing she could well face a former governor mark sanford in the race someone who had once represented that same district in congress. well, as the irish say, it's the long road that has no turning. suddenly we've got a new poll showing coburt busch up nine points on sanford, the race no democrat could win is now a race where the democrat could be hard to catch. it makes a point i learned working for speaker tip o'neill. i met a number of numbers who once deemed seats impossible